ADDED Units and Formations to data base (Full Version)

All Forums >> [New Releases from Matrix Games] >> Armored Brigade



Message

dpabrams -> ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/2/2018 6:50:13 PM)

This is a thread for those of us who are interested in creating new additions to the database. This is the M60, which was the predecessor to the in game M60A1. The M60 used the M48A2 turret and installed a M68 105mm gun and then mated it to an all new hull. Later the classic M60A1 turret was developed and it replaced the M60 in production.

How was this done? I created a new unit in a open slot (693) named M60. I cut and pasted an existing M60A1 into this slot and renamed it to M60. This gives me the hull I want but not the turret. I will need to build a M60 turret using the M48A3 turret. I do this in PSP by matting a 105mm canon and commanders cupola from a M60A1, to the M48A3 turret through a cut and paste process and color matching. I save this turret as us_m60_ts.png file (I also made winter and desert turrets).

In the units editor under the new M60 unit, under the size and armor tab, I edit the turret data to reflect that of a M48A3 turret, both in size and KE/CE and tandem armor ratings. Next under the weapons and ammunition tab I edit the ammunition to a total of 57 rounds for a M60. The M48A5 turret ammo numbers were used for ready ammo (19) as the turret layout and ready ammo for a M60 is much different than in the later spacious turret of the A1 model. I edit the ammunition to APDS-29, HEAT-18 and HEP-10, as carried by the M60A1 in game.

I then edited the resources_custom.xml file to add the M60 to the game. Be careful when doing this as you SHOULD ALWAYS back up your original data files. To add I just copied and pasted the string for the M60A1 units and changed the file names to the M60. The partial string for summer looks like this:

</sprite>
<sprite name="us_m60_hs" base_angle="0">
<image file="vehicle\us\us_m60a1_hs.png" />
<translation origin="center"/>
<rotation origin="center"/>
</sprite>
<sprite name="us_m60_ts" base_angle="0">
<image file="vehicle\us\us_m60_ts.png" />
<translation origin="center"/>
<rotation origin="center"/>
</sprite>

In game I needed to adjust the turret and commander positions. This is done by opening the units.xml file in WordPad and editing the X and Y positions in the string for the correct positions of the commander and turret. In the string my adjustments look like this.

<string name="turretSpriteX" value="0.0" />
<string name="turretSpriteY" value="-3.0" />
<string name="commSpriteX" value="14.0" />
<string name="commSpriteY" value="0.0" />

Next I created a formation for the 1271 slot in the formations editor called M60 Tank Platoon. It contains the 5x M60 for the TO&E of that time. However this has to be added into the factions.xml manually. I do this by opening the factions.xml in Wordpad. I find:
<string name="formation51" value="506,1965,1,1974,12,100" />

This is for formation 506 which is a M60A1 platoon from 1-1965 until 12-1974. You can learn to pick up the patterns in the string. I don’t know what the “100” in this string is for.

I copy this string and paste it right below in a string named:

<string name="formation51" value="1271,1965,1,1974,12,100"/>

Now I have inserted a platoon of M60’s available to the US player from 1-1965 until 12-1974. Later I will create a M60 HQ and Company(-).

I didn’t go into too many details on the actual artwork as that’s another topic. I do plenty of graphics work so the artwork is easy for me. It did take me a few days to figure the editor and editing of the XML files and a little time to figure out how to move the commander and turret sprites. Lots of trial and error.

I will next add a M577 Command track to the US command units.

I hope this thread will serve to get the modding off the ground. Please share you efforts to add to your database.



[image][/image][URL=http://s1256.photobucket.com/user/dpabrams/media/2018_12_02_123631_zpspp77nmbf.jpg.html][IMG]http://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii488/dpabrams/2018_12_02_123631_zpspp77nmbf.jpg[/IMG][/URL]










IronX -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/2/2018 7:07:35 PM)

Well done. A very useful guide.



dpabrams -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/2/2018 11:26:50 PM)

I did find it better when I added a M60HQ, M60 Platoon and M60 Company(-) later to change the factions.xml to a different slot. The US faction has formations to 200, this is listed below and all new strings I believe should follow this for the US faction:

<string name="formation200" value="529,1989,1,1991,12,0" />

After which I added:

<string name="formation201" value="1270,1965,1,1974,12,100"/> (this is the US M60 HQ)
<string name="formation202" value="1271,1965,1,1974,12,100"/> (this is the US M60 tank platoon)
<string name="formation203" value="1272,1965,1,1974,12,100"/> (this is the US M60 tank Company(-))

After this all three formations appear nicely ordered.








dpabrams -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/4/2018 1:43:05 AM)

I am working up a F-16A with a AGM-65A load out. Still experimenting with the missle.
[image][/image][URL=https://s1256.photobucket.com/user/dpabrams/media/2018_12_03_191058_zps3knv8vwx.jpg.html][IMG]https://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii488/dpabrams/2018_12_03_191058_zps3knv8vwx.jpg[/IMG][/URL]



Veitikka -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/4/2018 1:59:33 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dpabrams

<string name="formation201" value="1270,1965,1,1974,12,100"/> (this is the US M60 HQ)
<string name="formation202" value="1271,1965,1,1974,12,100"/> (this is the US M60 tank platoon)
<string name="formation203" value="1272,1965,1,1974,12,100"/> (this is the US M60 tank Company(-))


The mech/armor HQ formation should be the last of those three, because the auto-purchaser system picks the first HQ formation that comes after the platoons and companies. You can see that all factions list the mech/armor HQs after the platoons and companies of similar type.



exsonic01 -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/4/2018 2:39:30 AM)

That is cool, how did you modeled AGM? faster version of ATGM?



gbem -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/4/2018 4:26:14 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: dpabrams

I am working up a F-16A with a AGM-65A load out. Still experimenting with the missle.
[image][/image][URL=https://s1256.photobucket.com/user/dpabrams/media/2018_12_03_191058_zps3knv8vwx.jpg.html][IMG]https://i1256.photobucket.com/albums/ii488/dpabrams/2018_12_03_191058_zps3knv8vwx.jpg[/IMG][/URL]


Wait wait... the AGM-65 maverick is a standoff weapon... if anything it should be an offmap missile... it has a 22 km operational range in fact



dpabrams -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/4/2018 2:12:42 PM)

gbem-One major drawback of the A-model was the limited range at which the TV-seeker could lock on: although the missile has a range of up to 7nm (13km) under the worst possible circumstances (a low and slow aircraft), attenuation at optical wavelengths limits lock-on range to about 3nm (5.5km).



gbem -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/4/2018 6:28:09 PM)

the AGM-65A... the electro optical missile could lock on targets at 22km in good ground conditions however... and the later thermal AGM-65D and the laser guided E models allowed it to fire even in night or low visibility conditions... the D model was already present by 1983 and the E by 1985



Red2112 -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/4/2018 6:39:36 PM)

Nice work Pete. Nice to see you doing your magic [:)]



nikolas93TS -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/4/2018 8:26:19 PM)

By the way, in freeware database there was a Swedish AJ 37 Viggen which had Mavericks.

The issue is that with current system aircraft still attack the same target at which stand-off missile was launched, and since missile is just slightly faster it means other ordinance is likely to be fired too when aircraft get close enough. It was modeled as fire-and-forget so at least it had an advantage of engaging the target even if aircraft aborted the mission due to flak.



CCIP-subsim -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/4/2018 9:26:51 PM)

Here's one thought: does aircraft altitude in-game affect vulnerability to AA weapons?
If so, I guess the simplest way to model standoff weapons would be to just put them on aircraft that fly far above the AA systems' ceiling. It might not be the most elegant solution, but it would have the basically correct result for all intents and purposes.



dpabrams -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/4/2018 10:37:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: exsonic01

That is cool, how did you modeled AGM? faster version of ATGM?


I started with a Hellfire and started working it from there. The warhead on a Maverick is many times that of a Hellfire and I have yet to find a penetration for its 130lb (59kg) warhead. Currently I get launches starting at about 9Km out and as close as 3Km, often two launches in one pass, depending on the map size. I adjusted the F-16A speed down to 170 mps (0.5 mach) to allow for greater separation of the missile that is set at 292 mps. I am still trying to figure out the enabling of the top down attack, guided and fire and forget functions. Also a flight is like 2400 points which is cost prohibitive.



dpabrams -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/4/2018 10:37:55 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Red2112

Nice work Pete. Nice to see you doing your magic [:)]

Hey Red! I sort of laid of the SB. I'll need an update to get back into it.



IronX -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/5/2018 9:17:30 PM)

Attempted to add a new unit to the game: the AMX-30. It took a while, but I was able to create a new French faction and added the early version of the AMX-30, its gun, and ammunition with success.

[edit: No image to show due to this archaic forum.]



dpabrams -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/6/2018 2:11:24 AM)

Bummer, I post using photo bucket, but they are so bloated with pop ups and advertisements, it's a real pain in the ass.



Red2112 -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/6/2018 11:56:18 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: dpabrams

Bummer, I post using photo bucket, but they are so bloated with pop ups and advertisements, it's a real pain in the ass.


I have been using the below link for awhile. Works good for me so far (they do not expire)...
https://postimages.org/

Red

--



IronX -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/6/2018 3:50:43 PM)

It's not the hosting site that's the problem, it's the outdated Matrix forums that make it hard to post images. I just can't work it out.

Anyway, I added an upgraded AMX-30 (now with 20mm) to the mix and am happy with the results. I thought that perhaps with its weak armour, the AMX-30 wouldn't stand much of a chance, but it proved me wrong.

However, fine-tuning the data may undermine those results. The relative quality of the gun's optics, for example, is difficult to nail down. Some French sources say the main gun is accurate to 3000 meters, but many other (second hand) sources give it much less of a range. I've currently compromised and given it a range of 2500 meters. Same goes with the 20mm. I think at the end of the day, a lot of guestimates will need to be made.

Edit: Testing image post

[image][img]https://i.imgur.com/y58kKfZ.png[/img][/image]



Red2112 -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/6/2018 4:00:26 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronX

It's not the hosting site that's the problem, it's the outdated Matrix forums that make it hard to post images. I just can't work it out.


Copy "direct link" from Image host and past between "image" brackets...

[image]https://i.postimg.cc/jSqmdHGk/2018-11-30-114100.png[/image]







dpabrams -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/6/2018 7:00:22 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: IronX

Anyway, I added an upgraded AMX-30 (now with 20mm) to the mix and am happy with the results. I thought that perhaps with its weak armour, the AMX-30 wouldn't stand much of a chance, but it proved me wrong.


Strong work. How are you handling the images? You make them from scratch? Also, I believe the Leopard I and AMX-30, had comparable fire control and optics but I could be wrong.



IronX -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/6/2018 7:36:05 PM)

I created it from scratch, originally as a vector image.

The two tanks are comparable. The F1 gun was apparently similar to the L7, with early versions firing HEAT and later also APFSDS.



nikolas93TS -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/6/2018 8:46:38 PM)

The French AMX-30 and the German Leopard 1 were built to a very similar basic formula which is not at all surprising since initially, the two countries were collaborating to develop a common design (Europanzer) that would be used by both. Like a number of such ideas during the 1960’s and 70’s the collaboration did not bear combined fruit and each nation ended up developing its own new tank.

These tanks were both based on the idea that optimizing armament and mobility were the highest priorities, at a time when many designers thought it was impractical to carry enough armour to defeat the latest anti-tank weapons. Speed, agility and good hitting power were therefore being relied upon to a considerable extent.

These matters aside, a look at the specifications - and indeed, even the appearance of the first models of AMX-30 and Leopard 1 - shows just how alike they were in a number of ways. These tanks were nationally distinctive but essentially very similar answers to the same need. AMX-30's Achilles heel seems to have been power-plant/transmission reliability (or at least greater maintenance requirements compared to Leopard 1), and it could be argued that some of the modernization efforts sometimes lagged for a few years compared to German counterpart.

Also, commander cupola had gyroscopic stabilization for observation and it used 7.62 mm machine gun rather than 12.7mm.

P.S. great looking sprite!



IronX -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/6/2018 10:47:39 PM)

^ Thanks! The AMX-30 received an improved power-pack and other upgrades in the early 80s, which I reflected in my B2 version. I will correct the commander's MG as you are quite right in that it is a 7.62mm gun. I mixed it up with the turret MG, which is 12.7mm - this was later replaced by the 20mm.



zacklaws -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/7/2018 6:00:40 AM)

Unless I am missing something, why mess around with image hosting sites when you can just upload a picture from your PC and embed it into a post. Also if it's over the permitted Max size, just resize it.



dpabrams -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/7/2018 1:51:41 PM)

Guess I missed that one. But here I am attempting to show my M577.

[image]local://upfiles/15939/642F40FB25DF47B5AAAB0A9384F71E93.jpg[/image]



IronX -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/11/2018 1:09:48 AM)

France's Mystere IV ground attack aircraft.



[image]local://upfiles/17225/2F70DD78808C4E518C8A572FBC503A82.jpg[/image]



kevinkins -> RE: ADDED Units and Formations to data base (12/11/2018 1:27:40 AM)

Nice, very nice.

Kevin



Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
2.25